This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add support for VMS debugging format
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:30:57 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: Add support for VMS debugging format
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Your patch didn't include the new files, such as these.
>
> Right. This was discussed a while ago. In the case of new files,
> they can be picked up from the CVS, so there's no need to add the
> traffic. This is particularly true if the addition of the new files would
> need to cause the message to be compressed (not the case here).
I'll note I still disagree with this.
The new file *can* be:
* Picked up from CVS.
* Reverse patched back to the particular revision of the patch in
question, if there have already been subsequent checkins to it.
* Transfered from the machine with the CVS tree to the machine with the
list mail.
* Have quote characters added by sed.
* Included in a reply to the message with the incomplete patch.
(except that if anyone reads the lists on the web it will involve
* Run into web/638 when attempting to reach the file from the gcc-cvs
archives.
* Get the file manually from cvsweb.)
but a patch is a logical whole involving both new and existing files, and
should be sent as such. There is nothing in the contributing instructions
to approve any variation of only sending part of the patch, which does not
make sense on its own, or not sending the patch when it as a whole
consists of new files only.
The patch message didn't state what platform it was tested on either.
Please take more care to follow what the contributing instructions
actually are rather than what you'd like them to be.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk